Thursday, October 15, 2009

Last night I posted as the 'featured link' on this site a link to what purports to be a 2004 article, from the online archives of a Kenyan newspaper, about the withdrawal of Obama's original Republican opponent in the 2004 race for the U.S. Senate in Illinois. What is of interest for present purposes is that both the headline and body of the article refer to Obama as Kenyan born.

Given the sophisticated possibilities for fabrication in both the virtual and real world these days, it would be foolish to assume that by itself this 'proves' anything about Obama's birthplace. Even if the article is authentic, it would simply indicate that some people in Kenya thought (perhaps mistakenly) that he was born there. Kenyan newspaper stories from 2004 (online or otherwise) are no more definitive proof of Obama's birthplace than uninformative birth announcements in Hawaiian newspapers from 1961.

This episode simply illustrates the need for what I and many others have sought:

a Constitutionally authoritative investigation of the facts;

a similarly authoritative evaluation of its results;

And, based on that evaluation, a Constitutionally authoritative judgment of law and fact as to whether Obama satisfies the Constitution's clear eligibility requirements for the Office of President of the United States.

I have received, or read here and there in online exchanges, comments from people critical of those (like my lawyer in the case before Judge Carter, Orly Taitz) who publicized purported birth certificates that have been declared fabricated or fraudulent by unofficial experts. These critics apparently miss the point. The Constitution of the United States is not "unofficially" the Supreme Law of the land. Obama does not "unofficially" claim to be President of the United States. But those who voted in the 2008 general election, whether they voted for or against him, had occasion to do so thanks to his oath or affirmation that he satisfies the Constitution's requirements. Such voters are actually being deprived of the substantive assurance that we have not "unofficially" (i.e., without due process of law) been deprived of the right and privilege of a Constitutionally valid choice at the ballot box. Without this assurance, the electoral process the Constitution establishes, and the scheme of representative (i.e., republican) government it is supposed to implement, will be permanently impaired by the suspicion of lying and fraud perpetrated at the highest possible levels of government.

The establishment of fact required for a credible, Constitutionally authoritative and substantive judgment cannot be supplied by unofficial evaluations of purported evidence, or casual internet discussions of the provisions of law that are relevant to a judgment based upon that evidence. Whatever may be the doubts with respect to any particular testimony or documentary claims, Obama's own actions have surely become the main source of the cloud of uncertainty and suspicion with respect to his Constitutional eligibility. As with any other job applicant, the issue of credentials once raised is rightly dealt with as a matter of course. Applicants who refuse to comply with requests that they produce their qualifying credentials foment doubts, by their own behavior, where doubts would otherwise not exist. Add to this the concerted and unaccountably scurrilous media dismissal of the common sense demand that the issue be authoritatively resolved, and it's not hard to explain the increasingly widespread presumption in the minds of many that something of important relevance to the Constitutional issue is being withheld from public scrutiny.

Seeking to blame and persecute those who are asking public officials to abide by their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution further aggravates the impression of malfeasance. Some continue to insist that this request indicates hostility to Obama. The real hostility (and perhaps even invidious discrimination) is shown by the unwillingness to accord him the same opportunity for resolution of all doubt that John McCain enjoyed. Do some of the power elite think they gain advantage, from perpetuating the impression that only fear of some adverse reaction based on race, rather than undisputed Constitutional authority, accounts for Obama's continued presence in the White House? Like the workplace whispers that resentfully ascribe advancement to "affirmative action", rather than proven qualifications and performance, the ongoing refusal to allow Constitutionally authoritative closure in this matter smacks of more ill will than the honest desire to clear the air of doubt.

87
comments:

Whether born in Hawaii OR Kenya, since Obama’s maternal grandmother (38 years old when Obama born) unilaterally submitted birth info to Hawaii (generating the COLB), not Obama’s ‘mother’ (then 18 years old), who’s to say Obama’s grandmother is not his mother!?!

Ted, your unproven comments only add to the confusion on the eligibility issue. We don't care who his mother was, whether Ann or Grandma (what a stretch of the imagination). You are doing exactly what Dr. Keyes is condemning in this post...promulgating rumors and innuendo without any solid, verifiable evidence. Speculation is futile, for you will never know the truth until the evidence either proves or disproves Obama's natural born citizen status.

The point IS that since Team Obama relies on Honolulu Newspaper accounts of baby O being born in Hawaii, these are newspaper accounts too. In any event, all of these reports, coupled with the res ipsa loquitur of BHO spending more than $1 million to block info in court, THERE’S NO WAY JUDGE CARTER CAN NOW ENTIRELY DISMISS THE CASE!!

I commented several months ago that I thought AKA Obama's daddy was NOT AKA Obama Sr. I would not be surprised at all to learn he was someone else's child. It is a WELL known FACT that his mammy was a tramp...

Pray the man out! Prayer works! Ask GOD to forgive us and remove this curse!

I believe the "elite" (overly educated beyond their intelligence) are exploiting any and EVERY thing they can to maintain their dominance of power until they finish destroying the US economy, military and Constitution.

I think that the question of whether Barack will still be 'acting president' in 90 days is moot, since what he is acting as president of now cannot reasonably be called the United States of America as it is defined in the Constitution.

No, Derek P., the statement of Dr. Taitz is not innuendo and rumor. It states she has EVIDENCE. It states SHE has the evidence. She would gleefully present that evidence in court, but for the stall and delay strategy used by the Obama defense teams. By the way, did you all you are not paying for Obama's defense in all these eligibility lawsuits? When we win, are we going to demand our money back?

I assume the Honolulu Advertiser Newspaper fudging of history is all being made known to Judge David Carter in the Fed. District Ct., Santa Ana, CA, in Orly Taitz’s Keyes et al v. Obama.

If not it should be. Seems to confirm why discovery needs to proceed, like NOW, or ASAP!

In any event, it certainly dovetails with both the foregoing and ongoing RICO aspects raised in Orly’s recent filing (after the Oct 5, 2009 hearing) and, specifically, the Dept. of Justice’s ongoing delay of the case (through its Motion to Dismiss etc.) is an act (by the Government no less) in obstructing justice in what is the most significant case and constitutional crisis this nation has faced since the American Civil War.

Team Obama (with the help of the Justice Dept.) is benefitting from its delay of the Keyes case and discovery in the Keyes case, by the scrubbing of history!

Well, it is rather less likely that Obama was born in Indonesia, though he was pretty much raised there. Exactly how he left the country and re-entered the United States is...a mystery. It is one of the data points which suggest that StanleyAnne had some ability in the area of covert/undercover travel and document manipulation.

Pity she's dead and all, or Obama might be able to produce a better birth certificate.

"She would gleefully present that evidence in court, but for the stall and delay strategy used by the Obama defense teams." (MaryAnnH)

'MaryAnnH', are you certain of that? That the Obama defense team can prevent Dr. Taitz from submitting evidence that she has in her possession that would support the allegations being made? Hmmm. So why didn't that apply to the Kenyan birth certificate?

I do find it interesting that Dr. Taitz claimed (back in March) to have been in possession of evidence indicating that Ann Dunham had used different aliases which could have allowed her to leave and reenter the country undetected. That evidence can't be presented in Court (not to mention online), but a birth certificate from Kenya that appears months later was made available for the immediate consideration of the Court and the public. Alright.

"BY THE WAY, did you all KNOW you are paying for Obama's defense in all of these eligibility lawsuits?" (MaryAnnH)

Yes.

"When we win, are we going to demand our money back?" (MaryAnnH)

'Are we going to demand our money back?' Probably not. The end result will more than satisfy any monetary concern. (And that applies either way - win or lose.)

What's most worrisome is the fact 535 members who took an oath to uphold and defend the US Constitution have completely failed in their sworn duties.

If this fecal matter does eventually hit the proverbial rotating device it will provide quite the distraction away from the final chapter being closed on US sovereignty. Not that the one excludes the other.

If you can't see the writing on the wall perhaps when it lands on your head the view will be sufficient.

I have never in my entire life read so much rubbish. It saddens me that so many seemingly intelligent folks are so caught up in disclaiming "authenticity" of a person who has committed his life to public service -- including serving the "smart" idiots who have posted here and cannot see this.

Pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. Why not do something positive in your own lives to make this world a better place? You waste your breath and everyone else's time in your idiotic rantings.

Mr. Keyes, I am so thrilled to find your site. Your measured response to the intense situations of the day brings some sanity to this reader. I also do my small part, contacting my legislators, marching in protests, attending townhall meetings, and speaking out in letters and at my blog. Thank you for helping us take a deep breath and think through the troubling issues and events.

That is why I wonder why he RAN to his granny's side right before she "died." You never heard a PEEP from her... and his broke aunt from Kenya who was living in the projects over here somewhere up North. The "news media" went to interview her and she said she would talk AFTER the election. You never heard from her EITHER after that. Funny how all these people are not available and we are supposed to take his word about where he was born like he really knows...

What makes you think that the posters here aren't doing something positive in their own lives to make this world a better place? Because you disagree with them? And speaking of wasting your breath and everyone else's time in your idiotic rantings,...

Sulky, Saluki or whatever you are... You might not have read so much rubbish in your life (& I highly doubt it) but we read yours... OBVIOUSLY it was pointless to use the words "my entire life" as you come across as puerile. And, quite self righteous and egotistical.

Believe me, unlike those whom you most likely flock around with, your comments are welcome on Dr. Keye's blog. However, let me be the first to tell you here that those of us who read this blog regularly are not insulted by those of you on the left who pretend to find your meaning in life in your poor use of words and repetition. Along with your ability to NEVER debate and stay on topic...

The man who lives in OUR White House has NEVER done ANYTHING for PUBLIC service. It has all been for show and self. Perhaps before you would imagine that wherever you heard or read SUCH RUBBISH is true again, you would entertain the idea of taking a couple of years of psychology... And not for you personally except so that in the future you will not be so easy a target to be taken advantage of.

Something else MAY be going on here, that is, by Judge Carter's hiring of Siddharth Velamoor (from the law firm representing and closely connected to Obama) as his law clerk 4 days before the Oct 5 hearing.

It's simply too obvious. I'm assuming Judge Carter would surely know this would be relevant -- and be grounds for Motion for Recusal by Orly of Judge Carter.

Since there conceivably can be an Evidentiary Hearing (which would entail discovery) in connection with a Motion for Recusal of Judge Carter for hiring an Obama-connected law clerk, perhaps this is an avenue for Orly to be granted discovery without Judge Carter having to deny Obama's and the Government's Motion to Dismiss, which would be appealed and tied up in the Fed. Appeals Ct.

Just thinking -- especially since Judge Land's (obviously) gratuitous rulings and penalties against Orly would give ground for discovery there.

IMHO, Judges, especially federal, simply don’t do such obvious over the top things, like with Judge Land bashing Orly, gratutiously, as he has done — giving grounds for Recusal, OR, Judge Carter, hiring an Obama Law Firm-connected attorney 4 days before the hearing on the Gov’s Motion to Dismiss.

Having said that, were Judge Carter to deny the Gov’s Motion to Dismiss, there’s the very considerable possibility/probability the Gov could tie the case up in the Fed Ct. of Appeals — because they would instantly appeal — so we’d never get to discovery or trial for a very long time.

On the other hand, if Judge Carter does something giving Orly grounds to seek Recusal of Judge Carter by reason of the appearances of, if not real, conflict of interest — which relief is afforded Orly under federal statute, there would be a hearing in connection with that Motion for Recusal, for which Orly could present evidence (and maybe there’d be discovery in connection therewith) to show the Obama-related conflict of interest which could embrace issues surrounding Obama which are in issue in the case. So, BINGO, Obama matters (birth, natural born citizen, etc.) including operations of the law firm on behalf of Obama and the DNC (which it apparently represents as well) are before the Court AND NOT ABLE TO BE APPEALED OR KEPT FROM THE COURT, AND EVEN IF THERE IS ATTEMPT TO HIDE THOSE MATTERS, IT WOULD PLACE TEAM OBAMA IN AN EXTREMELY UNTENABLE POSITION.

Remember, the key to the whole case is Standing and Jurisdiction, not the merits of the case — which are SLAM DUNK AGAINST Obama, at least insofar as the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” requiring two citizen parents. So, Standing and Juruisdiction ARE THE BALL GAME. If there ever is standing or jurisdiction, it’s then immediately all over for Obama; it will never even get so far as a trial — discovery would end it all (and a scenario could then very well be the Democrat Congress selects/votes Hillary Clinton as President — and I already think she knows this may be coming down the pike, hence her re-emergence on the national scene — obliquely challenging Obama).

I’ve walked around this question of whether Orly will or will not file a Motion to Recuse Judge Carter.

I think she has to and will, and I think this could be checkmate for Orly against Team Obama — and here’s why I think this could be the case:

If Team Obama (which team really is the US Govt. thru the Justice Dept.) opposes Orly’s Motion to Recuse, they’ll have to argue why, and an evidentiary hearing on the recusal motion would follow. Evidence would encompass “birther and natural born citizen issues” since that is the case for which recusal is sought. As soon as a court is forced to look at the evidence (that being evidence of what facts are germaine to the case and areas of law which would need to be addressed in the main case, and/or discovery on those matters) IT’S ALL OVER FOR OBAMA! As I said before, the case will never go to trial anyway. If there ever is jurisdiction (standing), it’s all over THEN for Obama.

On the other hand, if Team Obama (meaning the Fed. Govt.) agrees to the Recusal (to avoid the Motion and Evidentiary Hearing on the issues of recusal) WHAT DOES THAT SAY?

And even aside from the above, even were the Judge to Summarily dismiss Orly’s Motion to Recuse, she needs to have her Motion for Recusal on the case record, to preserve her rights for later.

Either way, I think Orly is gonna have to file the Motion to Recuse.

The real interesting question is why did Judge Carter do such a blatant thing of hiring an Obama-law firm attorney as a law clerk 4 days before the Oct 5 hearing.

Did he do it on his own as the only way to get this case to evidence without delays in the Appeals Court (which would happen if he simply denied the Motion to Dismiss), or did Obama people (stupidly) put the pressure on Judge Carter to hire the lad.

Orly’s case vis a vis Alan Keyes is a tort case in fraud against Candidate Obama — and the US Govt. is not a party to THAT case, nor does Alan Keyes necessarily seek removal of Obama, just recovery for the fraud!

Once Candidate Obama is shown (proven) in Judge Carter’s court to be a fraud, Congress will make Obama leave office under tremendous political pressure to do just that (and then, of course, the Congress votes on/selects Hillary Clinton as the President — who will then be the best Democrat to face Sarah Palin in 2012).

I’m assuming Hillary is aware this is coming; and remember that Judge Carter was a Bill Clinton appointee.

It’s SLAM DUNK that Obama’s not a “natural born citizen” which requires 2 citizen parents. The federal judges know this and Team Obama knows this. That is precisely why jurisdiction and standing in any federal court IS the entire ball game against Obama.

And by the way, many consider it a "positive" to hold to account those who are in public service. Apparently you would give a pass to anyone who "serves". Including lies, deceit, surrendering national soverenty, etc.

If you can't see that America is in a very sad state of affairs, thanks to the public servants in both major political parties, then there isn't anything left for me to say to you. Go back to DailyKos or the Huffington Post and don't bother wasting your "breath" trolling here.

Of course, further posting would be unnecessary if one federal judge in one federal court, that being Judge David Carter, USDC, CA, finds standing for plaintiff Alan Keyes in his tort claim in fraud against Candidate (not ‘President’) Obama. (Does not need to be quo warranto for removal of ‘President’ Obama; recovery of Dr. Keyes of even nominal damages on the proof by the preponderance of evidence of civil fraud by Obama — which should be “slam dunk” under res ipsa loquitur of Team Obama resisting all discovery — as to his eligibility would place overwhelming political pressure on the Democrats and Congress to remove him from office — thus avoiding consitutional crisis.)

…which is why the finding of standing alone will immediately end Obama’s administration; the case need never get to the merits.

And to those who keep raising the wrong court issue re Orly Taitz, her Keyes case is NOT in the wrong court since her case is Keyes for damages in tort for fraud against Candidate (not ‘President’) Obama, and is not premised on quo warranto — and insofar as tort claim in fed ct, there is pendant jurisdiction.

Orly and Judge Carter must know this; and Team Obama must know this as well (hence the rush to weaken USA as quickly as possible before things come tumbling down on their heads).

And to those like Leo Donofrio (whom I greatly admire for more than “slam dunk” establishing that “natural born citizen” requires both citizen parents) I would respecfully dissent from Leo’s opinion that Judge Carter (at pp 43-44 of Oct 5 transcripts) tips his hand against Orly. To the contrary, Judge Carter is saying geography is not important where parents are citizens, hence, McCain (per Judge Carter at least) IS POTUS eligible, as distinguished from Obama where “natural born citizen” definition (two citizen parents; no dual loyalty) TRUMPS geography.

It seems the handwriting could be (we hope) on the wall as Judge Carter has found a way to (1) keep jurisdiction without quo warranto simply on a tortious fraud case by Keyes for damages, (2) avoid the constitutional crisis of ousting Obama (Congress will do that after Obama is found to have civilly defrauded Keyes, maybe with or withour RICO or conspiracy), and (3) with no need to address the McCain-Panama issue.

I truly believe that if O's approval ratings continue to dwindle, and stay in the nagative numbers long enough that Democrat defeat in 2012 would be invetiable, Ms. Hillary Clinton will miraculously discover the real birth certificate. Perhaps it is in the trunk of the car in the junkyard where they found all those Rose law firm documents showing their illegal activities. Either way, he will ever so politely have to step down, Mr. Biden will be a short term interim, and Hillary will be the nominee in 2012.

Even in the worst case scenario, that is, all cases in all courts are tossed out as there's no jurisdiction anywhere, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO, AND I MEAN NO POSSIBLE, WAY FOR OBAMA TO EVEN CONSIDER RUNNING FOR RE-ELECTION. The simple reason is that the birther and natural born citizen issues will be part of the campaign AND OBAMA WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER ONE SINGLE QUESTION -- so assuming Obama knows he can never be elected for a second term, what implications does that have on what he is doing now? Ponder that, and it's damn scarrrrrrry!

Ted: If by chance Obama is forced to leave because of discovery, why do you claim HRC will be appointed POTUS when she wasn't on the ballot. If Obama was fraudulent then it was entirely up to the Dem party to vet him to which they failed to do so which means either the GOP progressive McCain would be validated as president or Biden or still worse Pelosi would become president until emergency election could be held or have I missed something?

Good grief, Ted! Your constant posts obsessing about what Dr. Taitz may or may not do serve no purpose.

I suppose I must answer Derek P., who brought previous comments to another post into this thread. Derek cannot figure out why I told him and Pocket Rocket to watch their step because they were dangerously close to defamation.

Listen up, because I'm not going to visit this subject again. When you publicly accuse someone of intentionally filing false documents or conducting false discovery, you have crossed the line from opinion into libel, slander and defamation.

I am just really amazed that NOT ONE single person in ANY of the parties now in federal office has come forward to say that Obama cannot serve as president since his sire was (according to his tramp momma) a BRITISH subject. Have these people LOST their minds? Or are they paid off or scared? Or... are we REALLY living in the last days? Is this man the Antichrist?

I have NEVER seen people go this gaga over anyone in my life. It is as if time has been suspended and we have all forgotten how to read and think for ourselves.

I live in a MAJOR seaport area in VA and work around people that serve in EVERY aspect of the military - and I mean EVERY... I feel sad for these people that they have to serve under such pressure, indecision, spineless political slithering and no hope from the American people whom they protect EVERY DAY with their lives. Their children are some of the most WELL behaved and bright children and the spouses who have to go without the day to day love needed in a marriage... WHAT ARE WE DOING FOR THESE PEOPLE? Is anyone in leadership out there reading and listening? We are sending these people to die for a man WHO IS PROBABLY NOT EVEN A CITIZEN OF THIS COUNTRY!

He is breaking their backs abroad while he breaks our will at home. And guess what? If we needed them (and by reading Chiu's comments, we will!) he AIN'T gonna send them back to us!

Is ANYONE out there? What are we gonna do? I know y'all better be praying!!!

Orly simply files a Motion for Summary Judgment in her Keyes case before Judge Carter since there’s no dispute that baby O’s dad was British/Kenyan citizen.

No needed facts in dispute — enabling the court to make a decision strictly on the law — case closed!

This is based upon Obama’s (Sortero’s) own declaration to the world that his father is Barack Obama Sr. of British/Kenyan nationality on Barry’s birth — hence, by his own declaration he’s not a “natural born citizen” (requiring both citizen parents).

Re Orly Taitz's case, seems to me that since Judge Carter has yet to grant discovery (perhaps afraid to compel Obama to answer interrogatories and/or depositions) and at the same time really can't dismiss the entire case as Team Obama and the Dept. of Justice want because he knows that at the very least Dr. Keyes has a valid tort-fraud action against Candidate (not 'President' Obama), she should proceed to file a Motion for Summary Judgment (as set out in Judge Carter's Scheduling Order) since, even basing all facts in favor of Obama, he loses as a matter of law since he declares his dad was British/Kenyan on Baby O's birth, hence, it IS SOLELY A LEGAL ARGUMENT, that is, Constitutional POTUS eligibility of "natural born citizen" as opposed to just "citizen", requires two citizen parents.

As reported in comments on Citizen Wells, I cannot stress this strongly enough. After listening to Phil Berg’s radio interview I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT THAT PHIL BERG IS WORKING FOR, WITH AND/OR IN SUPPORT OF TEAM OBAMA. No doubt whatsoever!

The interesting thing here is the lengths and trickery used by and on behalf of Team Obama — to realize that Phil Berg was a plant for Obama all along! (By listening to Phil, it would appear that Team Obama is getting desperate and knows that Orly is closing in on them.)

Wow! Are you guys STILL at it? Maybe there's something to be gained from all this after all: while the "birthers" spin their wheels in this monumental circle-jerk they're keeping themselves occupied and out of trouble.

From listening on blogtalk radio, I think Kerchner and Apuzzo either may be missing something here or they're aware but don't want to discuss.

Their court dismissed Kerchner right after the the two Orly cases provided avenues to get Obama to account in a way which would not throw the courts and nation into a constitutional nightmare. (And anyway, depending on how the Orly cases go, they may dovetail later for use in Kerchner's appeal.)

Much as Obama would like to prevent the fine folks in the military from returning home in the hour of need, there isn't actually a lot he can do to prevent it. I mean, right now he's doing his level best to get them killed, and they're doing a pretty impressive job of staying alive. I calculate that, when the time comes, Obama won't want to make himself look bad for no real gain.

He'll promise to expedite things, then drag his feet as much as he can (which is a lot, he's really good at stalling). But that didn't work to save his pirate friends from the Navy Seals, and it won't work to keep America's military twiddling their thumbs while her cities burn.

Ambassador Keyes, folks like me, who voice concern about the lies and phony documents presented by your attorney, Dr. Taitz, have valid concerns. The ends don't justify the means.

There are constitutional means to determine if Obama engaged in fraud with regard to his eligibility for President. What is clear is that there are flaws in the eligibility determination process for Presidential Candidates. States can and should demand proof of natural born citizenship for all candidate placed on ballots vs. allowing political parties to certify those candidates. These laws may be put in place before the next election.

While the US Constitution does not define "natural born citizen", there is overwhelming agreement by legal experts and from SCOTUS opinions which indicate that there are only two types of citizenship. Americans become citizens by birth or by naturalization. Individuals who are born American citizens are "natural born citizens". The arcane legal theories which demand 2 American citizen parents for natural born citizenship status have no validity. The recent ruling on Kerchner v. Obama reinforces that fact.

After the vote of the Electoral College has been certified by Congress and the President-Elect holds office, he may only be removed from office by Congress. The US Constitution is quite clear on this point. Instead of going to court, I would hope that you and others who question Obama's citizenship, should ask that a senator or representative take steps to verify Obama's citizenship via an original COLB, provided by the State of Hawaii. If such documentation cannot be verified, additional documentation can be sought and examined.

If Obama is found to be a non-citizen or naturalized citizenship, Congress may move to impeach and convict him or, alternatively, move to remove him via legislative process authorized per the 25th amendment.

If Obama is found to be a US citizen, by birth, he is rightly President.

As a Christian, I am appalled and offended by those claiming to be believers who are "praying" for Obama's removal from office or worse, his death. Such prayers are an abomination. I pray that the Lord guide our President to do that which is right, in the name of Jesus. Amen.

How can you possibly say that the end does not justify the means when all people are trying to do is discover the truth. If he is not an eligible Presdient, and he knows it, and his handlers know it, what is his real purpose here? Who is really pulling the strings? Do we not have a right to know this? Can he run two terms as Obama and another two terms as Soetoro? It is not enough just to pray and assume everything is going to be all right. If you have a fox in the henhouse all the prayer in the world will not keep the fox from killing the chickens. We see day after day how Obama is handing our sovereignty over to the UN and wiping his nose on the Constitution. Prayer will not make him change ideology.

Relying in prayer alone to preserve our democracy is a means of complacency that our enemies depend on. It didn't work in 1776 and it won't work now.

"The establishment of fact required for a credible, Constitutionally authoritative and substantive judgment cannot be supplied by unofficial evaluations of purported evidence, or casual internet discussions of the provisions of law that are relevant to a judgment based upon that evidence." (Dr. Keyes)

I would suggest that, first, that principle be applied to the (purported) evidence that is being offered to compel the discovery that is being sought. Kenyan birth certificate. Social security numbers. Ann Dunham aliases. Shouldn't those items be subjected to the same scrutiny?

Why the fixation with Obama's birth place, These are mere technicalities. The man's mother is a full blooded American. If she had him in Kenya, America or the middle of the ocean what does it really matter. Not all laws are sensible or just. And with this line of reasoning we cannot become to entrenched in models that may not always be relevant or appropriate for our times.Rememember, some of the most vicious and oppressive systems were enforced through laws that were in reality socially canibalistic. Lets us talk about the substance of the man and forget this foolishness.

Orly's two cases (Fed District Cts. in Ga and Ca) are pivotally different from Kerchner (Fed District Ct. in NJ).

In fact, it's no coincidence that Kerchner was dismissed -- after waiting many months -- right after the the two Orly cases successfully provided avenues to get Obama to account in a way which would NOT throw the courts and nation into constitutional crisis -- the big fear of the federal courts (re political question etc.).

Judge Land (Orly penalty) case is currently all about Orly merely showing her case not frivolous (premised on need not to chill the rest of Americans from addressing their constitution). Checkmate against Obama!

Likewise, Judge Carter (Keyes) case does not have to deal with the constitutional nightmare of ousting Obama, that is, merely recovery of damages in fraud tort (even nominal) by Candidate Keyes against "Candidate" (not "President") Obama will do the job -- since Congress and the Dems would be politically compelled to oust Obama. Again, checkmate against Obama!

Were either and/or both Orly cases to move forward (standing is ALL that's needed since it's SLAM DUNK that Const Art. 2 requires two citizen parents for POTUS eligibility), it's all over for Obama, because politically his remaining in the Whitehouse, again, would be completely untenable even for the Dems and Congress.

Thus, after Orly files for Motion for Summary Judgment, premised even on all facts in dispute going for Obama (noting that Obama has declared to the world in what as admission against interest, that his dad was Kenyan/British citizen on Baby O's birth) the Courts can take the case without ever having to deal with discovery on the sole legal issue of meaning/applicabability of Const. Art. 2.

This leaves Team Obama really with its last remaining legal argument (noting that Fed. Ct. can get pendant jurisdiction over Keyes' tort action):

Const. Art 2. “natural born citizen” = “citizen by birth”

Const. Art 2. “citizen” = “citizen by naturalization”

Nice try, but no cigar!

... especially since all the fuss about McCain and the Senate Resolution would be shown.

So, take heart -- and if I'm wrong that's the current end of our Constitutional Republic (and could mean the second American Revolution since all other means have been turned back by a Government currently under unconstitutional coup d'etat).

I truly sympathize with Judge Carter, and our prayers should be with him, as he says he reads the internet and is aware of these factors (including the possible RICO implications recently filed by Orly and ongoing scrubbing of Obama-foreign born refernces in the Honolulu Advertiser just last week before our very eyes -- and during the pendency of Stay on Discovery (apparently being exploited by the "Government" and Dept. of 'Justice', no less).

History Writer: May GOD have mercy on your nasty mouth AND your nasty spirit - you seem to not have a soul. Maybe you should take a middle school history class (one from pre-1970, that is) and then go back and read OUR Declaration of Independence AND Constitution. Then you will have some inkling why we do what we do - for people like you who cannot, or WILL not, stand up for yourselves and who belittle people because you are not a person given to reason, sanity or logic. Or reading comprehension...

Lady Pocket: I do not pray for Obama's death because, like Dr. Manning, I wish him to be tried for treason AND sedition. I do, however, pray for GOD to remove him from the office HE STOLE, as I believe he is the curse GOD put on this land for all we have allowed to happen for the past 50+ years. ESPECIALLY BABY MURDER. I prayed for his salvation for about the first six months after he "won" the election (as he lied to say he "believed" in JESUS) but like Hitler, sometimes people just go too far. Some people you have to let go and if it is GOD'S will, they will come around. People like Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot, KING SAUL... GOD gets TIRED. HE gets angry. AND HE gets revenge! HE SAYS it is HIS. He ALWAYS has the last word AND HE has not had it yet with AKA Obama. But HE will...

This is a VERY serious matter and like everything in MY life, I believe it boils down to battles in the spirit world. And there is NO way on GOD'S green earth that I believe that AKA Obama has any part on GOD'S side. I do, however, KNOW that he is part of GOD'S plan. I just hope we come out a better stronger country having lived through such a perilous tragedy - and not like what happened during Noah's time. You know the next cleansing told by the Bible is by fire, right???

Hmmm...you either have a lot more faith in Obama than I do or don't mind praying without faith.

Well, there's something to be said for just saying what you think other people expect in your prayers. I'm no good at that myself, but it can have value in terms of makine prayer a chance to reflect on the moral assumptions behind whatever you're expected to say.

I personally think the whole system is hopelessly unconstitutional by now, so remembering the President in prayer would be a bit like throwing in the latest American Idol. Nothing wrong with that, but I'm not going to do it myself.

Still, I have to be at least as tolerant about prayers that Obama leaves office. I mean, it's exactly the same in principle as praying for the welfare of loved ones, particularly if those loved ones happen to be American soldiers. In fact, praying for the welfare or success of any American soldier is now being counted as materially equivalent to a prayer that Obama be removed from office...um...according to my own speculation on the matter (implies no endorsement by any religious figure, including Jesus).

Well, and Obama counts them that way too, but he's not a religious figure.

Then again, I have to agree that prayers for anyone to die are inappropriate, at least for Christians. Christians aren't supposed to pray to...probably shouldn't tell you that either. Still, 'abomination' is probably overdoing it. It's merely a breach of etiquette. Divinely sanctioned ettiquette, true, but it isn't like supporting a massive program to cannibalize babies or something.

Demanding "constitutional means to determining if Obama engaged in fraud with regard to his eligibility for President" when that is exactly what is being demanded of BHO, but is being withheld to us by Team Obama.

You correctly state that the Constitution does not explicitly define natural born citizen but incorrectly leave the definition up to "legal experts and SCOTUS opinions." (the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not what is defined by statutory law or "legal opinion.") The Framers clearly stipulated that the POTUS must be a natural born citizen, not merely a citizen. There is no conceivable interpretation (other than the wishful thinking of "hatriots") of the Constitution that would permit the President to be simply a native born citizen. Native born ignores the essential question of allegiance.

A dismissal (Kerchner v. Obama) is not a ruling.

Senators and Representatives WERE asked by their constituents to raise objections concerning Obama's eligibility when Congress counted the Electoral votes on January 8, 2009 (it required only ONE Senator and ONE Representative to halt the vote) but NOT ONE OBJECTION WAS RAISED, which means that Congress is complicit in the fraud. (Also complicit, IMO: Secretaries of State, Attorney Generals, DNC, RNC, SCOTUS).

BTW, what is needed is not a digitally photoshopped COLB or an "original COLB," but a long form birth certificate identifying the hospital and doctor.

It makes no difference if Obama is found "to be a US citizen, by birth," he cannot under any circumstances be natural born and can NEVER rightly be President.

As for using the Lord's name in vain, YOU, as well as your patently non-Christian leader, are an abomination.

[These are my observations and opinions, I am not being disrespectful, just offering rebutttal to pocketrocket's repugnant post]

pocketrocket,

It is glaringly obvious from your pathetic post that you are an O-bot spewing the talking points of your Marxist leader.

First, your feigned respect for "Ambassador" Keyes.

Second, voicing concerns about "lies and phony documents" presented by Orly Taitz is absurd in that Obama has been lying, obfuscating, presenting phony documents or withholding pertinent documents for years.

Third, if there are "constitutional means to determine if Obama engaged in fraud with regard to his eligibility for President," then why are the "constitutional means" employed by his opponents to question his eligibility dismissed as frivolous, mean-spirited, racist or inappropriate?

Fourth, while the Constitution does not explicitly define "natural born citizen," the opinions of "legal experts" and SCOTUS, or statutory (naturalization) law, do not overrule the Constitution, the supreme law of the land.The Framers stipulated in no uncertain terms that the President must be a "natural born citizen," not just an "American citizen."The requirement of two U.S. citizen parents is not an "arcane legal theory," it is an essential test of allegiance. The wishful thinking of "hatriots" who would accept native born citizens as President has no constitutional legitimacy. Natural born does not equal native born.

Fifth, Kerchner v. Obama was dismissed, there was no ruling, the only fact that it reinforces is a corrupt judiciary.

Sixth, concerned constituents who questioned Obama's eligibility DID ask their Senators and Representatives to verify Obama's credentials. It required only ONE Senator and ONE Representative to object, on January 8, 2009 when the Electoral votes were counted, to halt the vote. Not ONE Member of Congress objected, which tells me that Congress is complicit in the crime. (IMO, Secretaries of State, Attorneys General, the DNC and RNC and SCOTUS also looked the other way and allowed Obama to take office).

Seventh, a digitally photoshopped COLB, an "original COLB, provided by the State of Hawaii" or any COLB, does not without a reasonable doubt verify "Obama's citizenship." Only a long form birth certificate with hospital and doctor does.

Eighth, even if "Obama is found to be a US citizen, by birth," he can NEVER legally be President, PERIOD. Reason: when Obama was born, his father was a British citizen.

Finally, what "appalls and offends" me is using the Lord's name in vain, whether consciously or from ignorance, to lend credence to a known non-Christian who violates God's sacred Laws.

[My 2 previous posts were not acknowledged, they were probably lost in cyberspace, please use this latest revision]

Mr. Keyes, I just wanted to say thank-you and Orly standing up for the truth. I have a serious question for you, though. As of right now, there are several people saying that during the 2nd debate you had with Barack Obama when you both were running for Illinois Senate, you accused Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen to which Obama allegedly replied, "So what? I am running for Illinois Senator, not the presidency." My question to you is do you have any recollection of you saying this to Barack Obama during the debate? If that exchange between you and Obama did take place it wasn't included in the final cut of the debate that was aired by the ABC Chicago affiliate in 2004, but in April and May of 2005, C-SPAN re-aired the debate between you and Barack Obama, which supposedly included the bit where you accused Barack Obama of not being a natural born citizen. So far two people have come forward saying they saw the exchange on C-SPAN and one person said that he is willing to sign an affidavit. Do you know whether there is any validity to these claims?

There's an additional very important point to make -- as to why the Kerchner v. Obama dismissal is actually beneficial to Barnett (Keyes) v. Obama. During the Oct 5 Barnett/Keyes hearing, Judge Carter queried Orly Taitz specifically as to why her case was not filed before Congress tallied the electoral votes in early January or directed to Congressional actions or countering Congress.

Well, Kerchner's dismissal (albeit the merits against Obama can be entirely valid and even taken as entirely valid) said the court found plaintiffs like Kerchner AGAINST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS AND CONGRESSIONAL ACTION HAD NO STANDING ON THAT -- UNLIKE KEYES WHO HAS STANDING IN TORT-FRAUD AGAINST "CANDIDATE" (NOT 'PRESIDENT') OBAMA! -- so per the Kerchner dismissal, since going against Congressional inaction gave no standing, the issue of not proceeding before Congress acted would have afforded Orly Taitz's plaintiffs in the position of Kerchner no avenue or relief -- all the more reason why standing MUST BE GRANTED at least now (in Barnett/Keyes) OR THERE COULD NEVER BE ANY CASE OF ANY STANDING WHATSOEVER.

Dr. Keyes! I am starting to become concerned. You have not written in too long. I am praying for you. Please pray for us in VA. Lots of turmoil with our elections here... I will be glad when the dust settles...

Why on earth are you appalled and offended because Christians are praying Obama is removed from office? I wouldn't go so far as to pray for his death, but come on, this guy supports infanticide, sodomy, the destruction of America, etc. I could go on. And you pray he "does the right thing"!

I don't want to question your beliefs but I must say I've known people who claim to be Christian and are anything but. If you don't stand up to evil what can you claim to stand for?

We’ve crossed a very critical juncture in the Obama eligibility cases — very critical in terms of timing. I believe Judge Carter knows this.

Until now (or very recently, say last week or two) any court taking action vis a vis Obama eligibility would have seriously risked (let’s use the term for want of a better one) “riots in the streets” by some portion of the population, certainly civil unrest by segments of the population. As of now, the reverse is true, were the Carter court NOT to address the Obama eligibility case, the risk of, if not outright “riots in the street”, certainly substantial civil unrest is manifest by OTHER large segments of the population.

Perhaps this waiting for the day of reckoning was worth the while, noting the cost with each day of delay in terms of destruction of our national economy and defense, but again maybe a necessary cost to reach this point in time where the majority of popular support is in favor of definite court action against Obama.

Moving beyond, that is, assuming at some point soon — certainly well before the 2012 election — Obama will be ousted as ineligible (either by political pressure once Alan Keyes recovers in tort fraud against BHO or some other direct judicial directive to leave), there seem to be two opinions on determining a successor POTUS. (Biden would certainly be a no-go as connected to the ineligibile Obama fraud.)

Orly Taitz seems to think there’d be a special election. I’m not so sure. Wouldn’t Congress select a successor under the Constitution? Any discussion on this would seem to be of interest.

Ted - Every competent legal authority in the United States disagrees with you on most every thing you assert, regarding the US Constitution and natural born citizen status.

IONU - There are too many errors and false assertions in your comments to rebute in this type of forum, given the pace of moderation.

MaryAnnH - While Mr. Bush was in office, there was no substantial reduction in the number of abortions, no reduction in the prevalence of sodomy, and our country was weakened by any reasonable measure. If you wish to pretend that Obama is destroying the country and making huge changes which will lead us to Marxism, that's your business and commonly voiced hysteria. The differences between the Bush and Obama, the GOP and Democrats are similar to those between beige and light tan.

I invite you to read Judge Carter's ruling and compare his opinion and analysis to comments which I'd made.

Please Mr. Fitzpatrick... enlighten those of us who are not as intelligent as thou and pray tell us - WHAT has Dr. Keyes' latest crusade (?) been about that has lead you to believe he no longer provides spirited intellectual debate? As he is a man given to many extraordinary AMERICAN causes, we are not sure to which one you would degrade him for.

As far as prayer and Christianity go... I used to work at a Christian facility where it was en vogue to accuse people of not being saved. I thought it was not only tacky, but probably was more to the point of that person's lack of a honest relationship with GOD. You should never question if one is saved unless they are living an immoral life - say one who claims to love GOD but say it is ok to murder babies in the womb. I also try not to get too involved in others' prayer life, BUT I do know the BIBLE says to pray for those who despitefully use you - i.e. AKA Obama. I just believe the man is a curse and I pray for his removal. As GOD sees fit, of course...

Dear Pocket lady - I do not know of many people that I would term competent in our society anymore concerning legalities and ESPECIALLY our Constitution. Money buys too much nowadays and monkeys, birds, giraffes and bears (along with many animals) seem to be as capable as we at memorization and more importantly, COMPREHENSION. They also seem to have more rights because of a great mix on our part of ignorance, stupidity, pride and false hope. I do not credit another man when I can read just as well as him and am entitled to my opinion.

Be it as it may in your opinion, I see no other choice where President Bush was concerned. You would rather have had Al "heat 'em up" Gore? Or perhaps John "ketchup" Kerry?

I do not put too much trust in statistics either. People print those so people will use them to justify their position. If you are wrong, there is really no position anyway in the end, now is there? You cannot use someone else's perceived wrong to justify another's position either. It is not logical. President Bush AT LEAST stood for something and took action in protecting the unborn. Barack Obama (if that IS his LEGAL name) has no more business in OUR White House than Desmond Tutu. And he is an EVIL man. And you can best be sure sodomy will be on the rise because it is also a known fact that Barack likes it both ways... Now THERE is some hysteria for ya...

Where usurper in chief was born is irrelevant to the argument. As has been said, the fact that his father was a British Citizen makes, 0 ineligible for the presidency. (Mother could not transfer citizenship at the time)

Post a Comment

Be advised that this comment section is moderated in order to assure respect for civil proprieties. Posts that use obscenities, scurrilous epithets or that are gratuitously disrespectful of others will be removed ASAP. If you think a comment offensive in this way, report it in an email to alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

Terry Lakin explains seeking Obama eligibility proof

FEATURED LINK

Support This Site

Friends of Liberty:

The content I share on Loyal To Liberty takes a good deal of time and effort to prepare. It's offered in the hope that it will prove helpful to people trying to think through the challenges of faithful citizenship during this time of deep crisis for the republican form of government in the United States.

The site is, as it were, freeware, but of course its maintenance and efforts like the pursuit of the facts about Obama's eligibility eat up a lot of man-hours. Your donation will help me and those who work with me. So please click the button below and help out to whatever extent you can. No amount is too small. When everyone chips in, the 'widow's mite' is mighty. Thank you and Godspeed.(If you would rather send a check or money order make it out to Alan Keyes and send it to: Alan Keyes, PO Box 83759, Gaithersburg, MD 20883.)

THOUGHTLET-The Enemy of my Enemy is ?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. I've never been sure the old maxim made much sense. It gives your enemies rather too much control over the identification of your friends. What's more, it allows people who really aren't your friends to identify themselves as such just by opposing your enemies. Doesn't that make it easier for your enemies to plant agents in your midst with no more effort than it takes to stage a phony brawl?Because they live in such a hostile media environment, conservatives are all too willing to embrace any media voice that seems to take on their left wing opponents. But this means that at critical moments (particularly when it comes to personnel choices) they will be susceptible to information provided by people who have only been fighting with their enemies in order to get into a better position to do in the people whose sincerity, ability and leadership offer conservatives the greatest promise of success.In this regard I have observed that the most important information conservatives can get from Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel is silence: the things and people Fox positively ignores. You can be sure someone you know to be conservative is standing firm for what's right when you can't remember the last time you saw or heard anything positive about them on Fox News. Think of all the reporting they've done on the issue of Obama's eligibility for the Presidency.Listen to the silence. Better yet, learn from it.

Visit Me on Facebook

THOUGHTLET "A little thought (that) goes a long way."

During my service as an Ambassador and Assistant Secretary of State under President Reagan, a quiet but constant tug of war went on between the Reagan conservatives and the Bush Republicans, though supposedly all of us were pulling in the same direction.My brief as Assistant Secretary for International Organizations (IO- the bureau that, among other things, keeps track of the goings-on at the United Nations)included implementing Reagan's policy of withholding U.S. contributions to the UN until real management reforms were agreed upon and carried forward.I also got involved with issues that reflected Reagan's principled pro-life stands, and his strong commitment to defend Israel from the Arab inspired lynch mob more or less permanently on call throughout the UN system during those years.

Apparently one of the more polite terms of opprobrium the Bush forces used to pan conservatives like me was that we were excessively "ideological".To tell the truth, I always wore the intended slight as a badge of honor, sinceit signified theirreaction to my consistent efforts to make sure my actions served the ideas and principles Reagan stood for.

Meanwhile whether in or out of power the leftists who control the Democrat party have had no qualms about being "excessively ideological."While the Bush Republicans obligingly kept real conservatives running in place throughout their years of pre-eminence (while sopping them periodically with rhetoric and phony gestures of support), the Democrats looked for ways to promote their agenda of abortion, state atheism, and the erosive destruction of the traditional family (It's the major obstacle to totalitarian government control of the society.)Now that the leftists are surging with confidence, Obama shows no qualms about promoting "excessively ideological" extremists like Chas Freeman and Kathleen Sebelius to positions of controlling authority in the areas where they can do the most harm (from a conservative point of view.)Instead of running in place, they're poised to rush forward, like a good running back exploiting the chink of daylight that signals the way to at least a first down and who knows what more beyond that.

When are conservatives going to wake up and ponder the fact that the acronym for Running In Place is- R.I.P.

Share the Blessings of Liberty

THOUGHTLET

As I consider the reaction to my statement that Obama is a communist, I realize how thoroughly the Obama faction's media claque takes advantage of the ignorance even of those who are supposed to be educated and sophisticated spokespeople for conservative views. In this respect I am somewhat disadvantaged by my relatively small stake in this ignorance when it comes to political theory and ideology. For instance, people tend to associate the term "communist" with the violent takeover of government and society. Yet a thoroughly committed communist like Italy's Antonio Gramsci developed an understanding of the nature of political control, and therefore the path to power over a society, far more sophisticated than Marx's economic determinism. (Or was it in fact a more sophisticated understanding of economics?) It was therefore better suited to understanding and exploiting the "ideological" (i.e., spiritual and moral) vulnerabilities of the opponents of communism. In particular, his theories allowed for far greater use of cultural influences (the news and entertainment media, churches and other religious institutions, movements like "gay rights" that contribute to the destruction of moral institutions like the family, etc.) than some people associate with the term "communism". They helped later leftists to understand, explain and avoid (by learning from and adapting the enemy's tactics) defeats like those that fascism inflicted on mid-twentieth century communism in Italy and elsewhere.Reading Gramsci, one senses that he is looking at the intellectual framework for the Obama faction's secret strategic plan. As Sherlock Holmes knew, there's sometimes no hiding place more secure than one that is in plain sight. Especially in an era when the leftist takeover of education produces fewer and fewer people in each generation who bother to read books, especially the ones without pictures in them. (There's a good summary of Gramsci's thinking at http://www.theory.org.uk/ctr-gram.htm)

THOUGHTLET

Apparently most of the people in Congress who voted on the so-called stimulus package had no time to read it, even superficially. That might seem like fodder for a late night comedy routine, until it occurs to you to wonder who did read it? After all, if the elected representatives of the people are just rubber stamping legislation prepared for them by others, its drafters are the ones dictating the decision. Congress sinks into the role reserved for the People's Congresses in places like North Korea or the now defunct Soviet Union. How quickly the substance of constitutional self-government is being turned into the perfunctory sham characteristic of stolid party dictatorships ruled from the background by a handful of unaccountable little despots.

How many Americans wake up every day longing to live under party dictators, worshiping at the altar of a propagandized personality cult, in a world where party hacks offer the only hope of relief from bureaucratic tyranny? All in exchange for a surfeit of meaningless sex and the license to kill your unwanted offspring.

I used always to think of places under communist yoke as regions languishing under perpetually cloudy skies. Actually though, it wasn't the sun's light it cut off, but the light of true human personality. Would any sane people exchange even the worst risks of life in freedom for such soul stifling banality? Will we?

Liberty Loyalists

Subscribe To Loyal To Liberty

THOUGHTLET

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That's not a thought likely to occur to anyone thinking about the banking system these days. It's broke alright. Insolvency is the word of the day, along with that other word, nationalization. Funny how so many people who think the nation state has effectively ceased to exist when it comes to borders and immigration suddenly rediscover its powers when it's time to take over the banks.

"But Alan," you protest "we badly need a solution." Which, I reply, is not a good reason to accept a bad one. In fact , if things have gotten as bad as they say, maybe we should step back so as to let our thinking leap forward.

True, If it ain't broke, you don't fix it. But if it's really broke, you don't fix it either, you throw it away and replace it with something that works better. Instead of taking the bad logic of a failed centralized banking system to its logical conclusion (total centralization), replace the logic with something more suited to the twenty-first century. The twentieth century was all about bigger, more regulated and extensive organization. The hallmark of the twenty-first is the network, the model work-in-progress of which is the internet. It depends on decentralized, individual units, that reach out and form communities based on direct interaction and mutual assessment, rather than a centrally determined distribution of information (like a central bank's fixing the interest rate.)

If the present banking system is failing- let it fail. That's the first step in preparing the way for the emergence of twenty-first century financial networks. Instead of pretending that bankrupt governments can magically save a bankrupt system, accept the fact that the financial Titanic is sinking. Get people out of it, and use what resources we have to construct and launch the fleet of lifeboats in which they can distance themselves from the vortex it causes as it goes down. What I think we'll discover is that the new system we need will emerge from the resulting fleet, as we use twenty-first century tools to turn it into a floating net that won't be susceptible to the cascading disasters of the obsolete vessel. This deserves longer thought, which I give it in the essay Real Change Step Two: Replacing the Federal Reserve.

Twitter Updates

Twitter Updates

THOUGHTLET

I think it's not an accident that the American founders spoke of the people as a body (that is an organic whole), but the leftist proto-totalitarians that tutor socialists like Obama speak of them as "the masses." A mass is composed of conceptually identical parts, whereas the body is an organic whole in which each part is defined and differentiated by its individual purpose with respect to the whole. Is this why there are so many examples of totalitarian regimes that treat people as if they are mounds of dirt to be shaped and repressed, used or discarded (killed) without respect for their individuality? This totalitarian mentality finds a counterpart in the approach that claims to deal with human affairs scientifically, on the assumption that people are no different than other merely physical things.

Here is an audio compilation of the Thoughtlets I post every now and then. I'm making them available as a podcast at http://loyaltoliberty.podbean.com/. They are also accessible as an audio feed. Visit the site, and spread the word. The little thoughts are now consumable as little soundbites. They could be a great way to introduce Loyal to Liberty to people you know.

THOUGHTLETS (Podcast)

About Your Host

For a long while I have been involved in government, politics and citizen activism. I am Christian, Catholic, Pro-life and pro-liberty. I am sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, and the republican form of government it establishes. I uphold and seek to preserve the sovereignty of the American people, and to restore respect for the principles set forth in the American Declaration of Independence. In light of those principles, I believe the top priority of our political life is to restore respect for the existence and authority of the Creator, God and to rebuild the moral conscience and character of the American people on the basis of that respect; For God, Liberty and the Constitution.

THOUGHTLET

What signals the difference between a "socialist" and a "communist"? It's the gradual repression of political and civil liberty culminating in the open prosecution and suppression of dissident views. But this suppression cannot come about until a monopoly has been established over access to the seats of government executive and decision making power. The key manifestation of this monopoly is of course some form of party dictatorship.

Aside from all the evidence in his known background, associates, policy preferences and political actions one of the main reasons I make bold to call Obama a communist is his grab for unchecked partisan control over the conduct of the next census. Skillful manipulation of the census could make the decisive contribution to establishing an electorally unchallengeable party monopoly, which would then provide the basis for consolidating party dictatorship. If such dictatorship were not part of their agenda, the Obama faction would leave ultimate oversight of the census process where the Constitution places it, in the hands of the legislative branch. As it clearly is part of their agenda, only ignorance or willful stupidity blinds people to Obama's ambition to establish a better tailored version of Soviet-style government in the U.S.

Of course, there may be another name for what keeps some of the so-called Republicans from speaking out about it. Could it be cowardice?

Copyright Regulations

All material on Loyal To Liberty is copyrighted and you will need to observe these regulations when you plan to distribute or use content from this blog.

Copyright Regulations for Content on Loyal To Liberty

You are free to share, distribute or transmit any work on this blog under the following conditions:

Attribution. You must attribute any content you use to Loyal To Liberty by including a link back to the specific content page. You must not suggest that Loyal To Liberty endorses you or your use of the content on this blog.

Even with attribution, you do not have permission to republish the entire blog post on a website.

Only excerpts of less than 100 words from each blog post may be published on other websites. A link back to the specific blog post must be included.

Noncommercial Usage. You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless authorized to do so by Alan Keyes.

Derivative Works. Within the limits heretofore specified, you may build upon the contents of Loyal To Liberty as long as proper attribution (see above) is made.

If you want to syndicate or distribute the full blog post on your website,permission must be obtained before you do so. For permission, please email alan@loyaltoliberty.com.

THOUGHTLET

Everyone's fussing over whether the Alleged Usurper's stimulus plan will help or hurt the economy. Are they missing the point? Massive taxpayer resources are being pumped into Obama's powerbase. His cohorts grow stronger, while the larger economic impact of the plan makes everyone else weaker. Not much of a recovery plan, but a great strategy for securing power.

Then there are all those Hamas loving Palestinians he's using taxpayer money to bring to the U.S. After 9/11 the Palestinians danced in their streets. This time they won't have far to go to dance on our graves.